That's why you need to take the upload, check-out, copying out of the equation. Let them edit and save whatever they want to disk - the right technology can scoop those actions back up and bind it to the right repository transparently.
The problem is when you introduce non-linearity in a document editing process you often wind up with competing edits, edits to old versions that now must be reconciled, etc. It's a lot more difficult than simply changing a few lines of code because it is process that must work properly with the appropriate controls and approvals and the human side is where the screws occur. Software can control edits but cannot ensure the are the correct and final ones.
Your argument would fail, since it's not possible to confirm Revleap was even offered to read the terms of service, let alone agree to them.
Especially since they state quite clearly
By accessing or using the Site, you are agreeing to these Terms and concluding a legally binding contract with Yelp Inc
And there is no proof Revleap accessed or used their site. That is done via third parties.
Exactly, and since they are acting on Revleap's behalf then Revleap is responsible for their actions, including violation of terms of service. Revleap is paying them to carry out an action and thus responsible for what they do. A reasonable person would find that Revleap should be aware of their existence, given their offering to post positive reviews so the "we didn't do, someone else did it" argument would fail. Which is why I would think a tortuous interference claim would be more likely than a simple breach of contract.
Since when does the clicking the mouse on a computer constitute a contract? For a contract to be valid both parties must be IDENTIFIED unambiguously. This is essentially impossible over the Internet. To make a valid, enforceable contract the participants also must be over 18 years old.
A contract requires three things (in the US):
Offer, Acceptance and Consideration; all of which can be met by creating a Yelp account for posting on Yelp. As for identifying both parties, the person signing up knows who they are and who Yelp is; if they chose to use a false ID that is not Yelp's fault and not a reason to void the contract. Using a false name doesn't absolve someone of performance under a contract. If they re below the age of consent for a contract that is a different story, but that is not the case with the OP.
Anyone can click a mouse attached to a computer. Getting people to think that a click of the mouse on the computer screen is a valid contract is another one of the many fictions that lawyers have foisted upon gullible, uneducated people.
Despite your belief to the country, a mouseclick can constitute acceptance of a contract; it's not something foisted on the gullible by lawyers. You do that every time you click Buy on a website, for example.
Separate from a mouse click, the act of posting would indicate acceptance of the contract. Yelp made an offer - you can signup and post if you follow these rules, your signing up and posting constitutes acceptance of that offer. I could see not being bound by any terms if you didn't sign up or even if you signed up and did not post; but once you post it's pretty clear you accepted the terms and conditions of their offer.
Personally, and IANAL, I think it's more of a tortous interference claim bases on TFA.
The greatest document version control solution will ultimately prove to be useless without considering the human, i.e. user, part of the solution. Unless you have clear procedures in place detailing how to maintain version control, teach people how to use the software, explain to them why version control is important (and yes that means you, Mr or Ms senior executive who doesn't have time or the need to follow procedures that are in place to prevent the last screwup you caused by ignoring them), and have someone who maintains the document library and keeps it in shape so it actually is easy to use, your solution will fail. Without that, people will download the latest, make edits, save a copy and upload the edited version. After a while they will simply edit the saved copy and, if you're lucky, upload it as a new document.Others will download a document, make edits, save a copy and send it out without ever checking the document back in so no one else can edit it; those people will find an older version and simply edit it.
I've been there and seen it done very poorly and very well; the key difference is those who do it well have someone who knows how to make it work, can educate people and convince them why it is important, and actually make it work. Those where it fails simply put in a technology solution and then wonder why it didn't works they search for the next technology solution.
When did Revleap themselves use the Yelp services and agree to the terms of service? They contract that out in exchange for gift cards.
I would argue that they accepted the terms of service when they offered to post positive reviews, even if they contract that out. If you don't buy that, contrasting out the service could be construed as them knowing of the contract and a way to avoid it. In that case, if they are paying others to post it could be tortuous inducement to breach the contract or tortuous interference with business relationships since it would damage Yelp's business.
So they are violating Yelp’s terms of service!? Since when have anybody's terms of service been enforceable in a court of law? It is immoral to lie, but of course it's not illegal, because politicians do it all the time. So why should it be illegal to pay somebody to post fiction on the Internet? Maybe some lying politician will introduce a bill to make it illegal?
It is a contract. How enforceable it is is decided by a court. Posting fake reviews lessens the value of Yelp and thus if they win they can show damages.
If you don't cater to hardcore gamer/technology enthusiast market that is most interested in overclocking, just who is going to buy your chips and cards?
I would guess that market is small enough not to worry about any impact on sales. If including discrete graphic chips is important for mainstream sales manufacturers will use them in some higher end systems; if not then they are on the way out wether or not they can be overlocked.
I have a friend who has basically killed two laptops overclocking them, he then takes them back and demands they are faulty
Your friend is kind of a selfish dick.
yes he is. But that is hardly a rare condition. He justifies it by saying they wouldn't put the feature in their if it wasn't meant to be used, therefore it is their fault.
He has a point; absent the manufacturer saying not to overlock or the warranty is void. Is it any different, in principle, than a manufacturer letting you run the CPU at a higher clock rater in "Turbo" mode and if it fails saying "tough luck?" I can see why Nvidia pulled 2015-02-16he capability since they probably never intended for it to be used because it can cause problems and leave them open to repair claims.
If the user overclocks their GPU and it ends up overheating and breaking down isn't the responsibility for that on the user's shoulders? Why does NVidia care so much? Does the law somewhere state that NVidia is still responsible for the damages since their drivers have such an option or what is missing from this story? If some law somewhere did state that then I could totally understand NVidia's stance, but at the same time it would make me wonder why it doesn't apply to desktops, then.
if Nvidia provided the capability and it caused the damage they might wind up liable for the damage, wether from a suit or a manufacturer making them cover repairs. To use a car example, if an engine control module lets you fiddle with settings to get more horsepower or remove the rev limiter and you lunch an engine after using a form the manufacturer capability in the system then they may be liable for repairs.
"I made the fateful decision to become a web developer in a small SME in SEA"
I do not know what your acronyms are and damn you for expecting me, the reader, to google them. Next skill? Learn to write.
The OP is an engineer, and a double E at that. Social skills and the ability to communicate are not required in that field of study, and can actually be detrimental. Now, if the OP were an ME, or even better an Aero, than those skills would have been evident in the posting. Just be glad the OP was not a Civil.
1. Apple is a $700B company with >$100B in cash. Think about that for a moment. They could purchase Tesla ($25B) and GM (~$60B) without so much as taking out a loan.
Which proves my point - the barriers to entry are a lot higher for becoming a car manufacturer than making a phone. Apple didn't spend 25 - 60B$ to create the first iPhone. It's not that they don't have the cash it's the high cost of entry to even have a chance to succeed that is the issue.
2. Tesla has already shown that you don't need dealerships to sell cars.
Not really. They've proven that while you can sell a few cars to early adopters you face a stiff uphill battle getting the no dealer model widespread success in the face of dealer opposition and state franchise laws that protect politically powerful dealerships.
That sounds *exactly* like the language everyone used to say Apple could never make a cell phone. Wouldn't know how to deal with the carriers, too many regulations, too many different systems, not enough stores, supply chain would kill them, too many tough competitors, etc. Remember?
Yes, and as I said you can never count Apple out. However, the car market is very different from the cell phone market with much higher barriers to entry. Apple could make a high end prototype vehicle but a mass market one is a very different beast. For example, Apple already had much of the technology in the iPod that could be adapted to a phone. The had an existing supplier base that could sell the phone and in many ways the iPhone was a low risk deal for carriers. If it failed, they still would sell phones and move on to the next hot phone. The sticking point was to
Selling cars requires dealerships, who have to invest millions in building a dealership before they sell one car.If the line goes bust, they are out a lot of money so they want to be sure before they sign on the dotted line. Knowing Apple, they will be like BMW/Porsche etc and demand separate stand alone operations that meet their design requirements; not some existing one that slaps Apple on their list of marques and sell stem along side Chevys and Fords.
That's why I say it is more likely than Apple is exploring making components for use in vehicles than becoming a manufacturer. They might decide to make some very high end cars in a limited run to showcase there tech but I'm guessing the real money for them is becoming a supplier of advanced in car electronics; especially if it integrates into their existing eco system.
If you actually have a car with DIN slots you can slip a popout touchscreen hdmi or vga display in there. But yeah, we'd all like to see standards-based interfaces on those pop-out displays in cars.
Unfortunately, many cars no longer have DIN openings, and even more importantly, are using proprietary busses so even if an aftermarket radio fits you can't connect to the speakers, etc . and have to rewire everything.
I know you think you said something clever, but I should point out that there was a time when Apple didn't know how to make phones or run retail stores. They found and hired the experts they needed to become world leaders in those lines of business.
I'm going way out on a limb here, but it seems to me that if Apple gets into the car business, they'll do so by hiring the top automotive engineers and designers in the world. I know they can outbid anyone else for them.
-jcr
While I wouldn't count Apple out of any line of business they decide to enter, not because they can hire talent but because when you are sitting on billions in cash you can make a lot of mistakes without killing yourself. However, the car and phone business is very different than retail or making phones. They no doubt could pull off a Tesla clone and sell in the US; but becoming a world leader would be many times more difficult. They would need to deal with a myriad of local safety regulations, distribution laws, shipping and storage capability, not to mention setting up a supply chain and manufacturing systems that is very different from making a phone. While they are great at supply chain management they would be tackling a very different type of supply chain. They'd have to be a Porsche or BMW in order to make anywhere near the kind of margins they'd want; even then their stepping int a very crowded space against very tough competitors. My guess is they more likely would become a supplier of key electronic components to manufacturers, making an Apple control system a deficit standard.
Definitely used for lead generation. That was kind of what I meant by position. You can search for "Head of IT" in x region with a company of 50 or more staff.
Yup, That's why when I get requests to connect from people I don't know if their profile looks like a they will be trying to sell something it gets a "I don't know this person" response.
LinkedIn has 2 main income streams. The first is by selling job ads to employers. These are relatively expensive (compared to other job boards) costing $250+
The other is recurring subscriptions which give you additional features. A base account can only "see" 3rd degree connections when doing a search. When you purchase a premium account you are able to get access to the entirety of linkedin's network. This is a huge difference if you are searching for a particular skill set or position.
It also seems to be used as lead generation system. I get requests to connect from people I do not know and when I check they usually are in some business that sells products in my field, and occasionally some random person I have never heard of and probably sent the request in error. They get a simple "I don't know this person" and they go away. I started that after I accepted some invites and started to get "we have a product.." emails.
The other is InMails. These are direct messages that you can send directly to another user without being connected to them. Until January this year LinkedIn guaranteed a response in 7 days or you got your inmail credit back. Now they have flipped it so you get a credit back if you get a response.
A full subscription account costs c$1000 a month. It tends to be used by recruiters and internal HR people the most.
Sound like too many people were ignoring them and thus costing them money.
I don't think it makes any noticable difference but that was not the point I was trying to make. If they can show a measurable difference
And again you miss the point: no matter what equipment you use you will not be able to detect any difference in sound quality between their cable and a regular cable.
No, we're discussing two different points. While I agree that a user would not notice any difference in sound output; that is not my point. The OP mused about them being sued into oblivion base don their claims. My point is there is nothing in their claims, beyond past the 100Gbs over 100 m claim that is provably false. Even the 100GBS could be explained as a typo if they are called on it.
It's even obvious without any testing to anyone who knows anything about the Ethernet, TCP/IP or the OSI model: either a packet of data makes it across the cable or it does not. If it does, then it's going to be bit for bit identical no matter what cable you used, and thus the resulting sound will be identical too. If the packet did not get across, then it means you god a broken cable or some rodent has been chomping on it. But the result will either be a retransmission in time, in which case there will again be no impact on the sound quality, and if not, a pop, stall or stutter
They never claim better sound quality, their claims are all about the construction of the cable.
. But you will under no circumstances get a reduced "sound picture", lesser "differentiation between sonic elements" or lesser "sense of clarity".
That is a review, which is an opinion. Yours and mine would differ but that does not mean the other's opinion is false. In short, while I think they are selling snake oil that doesn't mean they could be sued into oblivion based on a differing opinion.
As I said I gave you a deep discount. But if you still think that electrical noise and crosstalk are in any way relevant to the quality of sound sent through IP packets, then you don't know what you're talking about. In fact it puts you clearly in their target audiophile category with the only thing saving you being the size of your wallet. They could likely con you by selling making the same claims about an ordinary cable and selling it at a a mere 50% premium.
I don't think it makes any noticable difference but that was not the point I was trying to make. If they can show a measurable difference, even if a human would not notice it, then their claim is not false even if it could be considered misleading and thus defensable in court. Given that many of their claims are subjective it would be hard to prove they are false. As for being their target audience I ran generic cat 5e and speaker cable that meets building code and spent as little as possible my wallet is safe. I must admit I splurged on conduit at a few cents a foot rather than merely stringing cable to make it eaiser to pull a replacement if one gets damaged or fails.
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
Oh. I see the problem. Your connection to the Internet goes through a low quality Ethernet cable, or even, shudder, a WiFi connection. But fear not. I provide you with a premium high-fidelity Ethernet cable that will let you see the full clarity of my prose. With it the words will be sharper, their meaning will come into focus. Never again will you have to wonder at the meaning of what you read. And it can be yours now for the low low price of $1000.
Close, but you left of a zero at the end of the price...
when something like a TV will require accepting an EULA in order to use it as intended. No doubt, buried in the EULA will be your agreeing to let them send ads whenever they want. What's next, a coffee machine that can insert other brands of coffee into the brew cycle?
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
I really doubt that.
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
We'll have to disagree with that. I think their claims fly right past the hyperbole zone and land squarely in the outright lie territory. I still think Consumer Reports, The Better Business Bureau or even any competitor would have no trouble getting them condemned for false advertising.
While I agree with you and we are probably closer in our opinions than the thread suggests, there's a big difference between thinking they are lies and proving they are in a court of law; which was the GP's original question. Could you prove there is no noticeable advantage to such a cable and that it's claims are inflated? Sure. Can you prove they were deliberate lies, not just overstatement of tiny measurable differences, and thus false and misleading? Much harder.
For example, they claim they notice better performance in one direction and thus have an arrow to show the proper orientation. While I think that is a bunch of BS they could actually do that; and in the end it becomes a difference in professional opinion, which is different than a lie.
In the end, it proves the adage you can never go broke underestimating the stupidity, nor wallet size, of an audiophile.
Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer?
I doubt you'll find a 10 cent Ethernet cable of that length. Regardless any $5 cat-5 compliant ethernet cable will produce exactly the same sound as this $10000 cable. And I do mean a bit for bit identical and totally indistinguishable by ear or machine. The only exception would be if they use that cable to transmit analog signals instead of Ethernet data.
At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction.
Individual electrons are not data. That company claims the data travels in only one direction but that would prevent TCP from working and also cause the cable to fail the Ethernet requirements. So either calling it an Ethernet cable is a lie, or claiming data travels in only one direction is a lie. So either way they lied and that's no hyperbole.
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
Actually, they seem to claim the cable is directional, not unidirectional, in that it works better in one direction and thus marked with an arrow. While I doubt that claim, it is different than being unidirectional, so my interpretation was incorrect but their claim is not necessarily untrue.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
How come these companies don't get sued into oblivion for false advertising (claiming an impact on sound quality, unidirectional data transfer, 100Gbps compatibility). And why don't the reviewers get sued too for professional misconduct?
Hyperbole is allowed in advertising and,at some level their claims are true even if they are ridiculous. Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer? At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction. The real readon they don't dissappear into oblivion is audiophile gullibility and stupidity know no bounds. As a result when people want snake oil someone sells snake oil.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you need to take the upload, check-out, copying out of the equation. Let them edit and save whatever they want to disk - the right technology can scoop those actions back up and bind it to the right repository transparently.
The problem is when you introduce non-linearity in a document editing process you often wind up with competing edits, edits to old versions that now must be reconciled, etc. It's a lot more difficult than simply changing a few lines of code because it is process that must work properly with the appropriate controls and approvals and the human side is where the screws occur. Software can control edits but cannot ensure the are the correct and final ones.
Your argument would fail, since it's not possible to confirm Revleap was even offered to read the terms of service, let alone agree to them.
Especially since they state quite clearly
By accessing or using the Site, you are agreeing to these Terms and concluding a legally binding contract with Yelp Inc
And there is no proof Revleap accessed or used their site. That is done via third parties.
Exactly, and since they are acting on Revleap's behalf then Revleap is responsible for their actions, including violation of terms of service. Revleap is paying them to carry out an action and thus responsible for what they do. A reasonable person would find that Revleap should be aware of their existence, given their offering to post positive reviews so the "we didn't do, someone else did it" argument would fail. Which is why I would think a tortuous interference claim would be more likely than a simple breach of contract.
Since when does the clicking the mouse on a computer constitute a contract? For a contract to be valid both parties must be IDENTIFIED unambiguously. This is essentially impossible over the Internet. To make a valid, enforceable contract the participants also must be over 18 years old.
A contract requires three things (in the US):
Offer, Acceptance and Consideration; all of which can be met by creating a Yelp account for posting on Yelp. As for identifying both parties, the person signing up knows who they are and who Yelp is; if they chose to use a false ID that is not Yelp's fault and not a reason to void the contract. Using a false name doesn't absolve someone of performance under a contract. If they re below the age of consent for a contract that is a different story, but that is not the case with the OP.
Anyone can click a mouse attached to a computer. Getting people to think that a click of the mouse on the computer screen is a valid contract is another one of the many fictions that lawyers have foisted upon gullible, uneducated people.
Despite your belief to the country, a mouseclick can constitute acceptance of a contract; it's not something foisted on the gullible by lawyers. You do that every time you click Buy on a website, for example.
Separate from a mouse click, the act of posting would indicate acceptance of the contract. Yelp made an offer - you can signup and post if you follow these rules, your signing up and posting constitutes acceptance of that offer. I could see not being bound by any terms if you didn't sign up or even if you signed up and did not post; but once you post it's pretty clear you accepted the terms and conditions of their offer.
Personally, and IANAL, I think it's more of a tortous interference claim bases on TFA.
You left out:
5.a Spend an inordinate amount of time explaining and defending your estimate to the point the CTO and CFO forget about the initial problem
Delete steps 6 - 9
The greatest document version control solution will ultimately prove to be useless without considering the human, i.e. user, part of the solution. Unless you have clear procedures in place detailing how to maintain version control, teach people how to use the software, explain to them why version control is important (and yes that means you, Mr or Ms senior executive who doesn't have time or the need to follow procedures that are in place to prevent the last screwup you caused by ignoring them), and have someone who maintains the document library and keeps it in shape so it actually is easy to use, your solution will fail. Without that, people will download the latest, make edits, save a copy and upload the edited version. After a while they will simply edit the saved copy and, if you're lucky, upload it as a new document.Others will download a document, make edits, save a copy and send it out without ever checking the document back in so no one else can edit it; those people will find an older version and simply edit it.
I've been there and seen it done very poorly and very well; the key difference is those who do it well have someone who knows how to make it work, can educate people and convince them why it is important, and actually make it work. Those where it fails simply put in a technology solution and then wonder why it didn't works they search for the next technology solution.
A contract must be agreed by both parties.
When did Revleap themselves use the Yelp services and agree to the terms of service? They contract that out in exchange for gift cards.
I would argue that they accepted the terms of service when they offered to post positive reviews, even if they contract that out. If you don't buy that, contrasting out the service could be construed as them knowing of the contract and a way to avoid it. In that case, if they are paying others to post it could be tortuous inducement to breach the contract or tortuous interference with business relationships since it would damage Yelp's business.
So they are violating Yelp’s terms of service!? Since when have anybody's terms of service been enforceable in a court of law? It is immoral to lie, but of course it's not illegal, because politicians do it all the time. So why should it be illegal to pay somebody to post fiction on the Internet? Maybe some lying politician will introduce a bill to make it illegal?
It is a contract. How enforceable it is is decided by a court. Posting fake reviews lessens the value of Yelp and thus if they win they can show damages.
If you don't cater to hardcore gamer/technology enthusiast market that is most interested in overclocking, just who is going to buy your chips and cards?
I would guess that market is small enough not to worry about any impact on sales. If including discrete graphic chips is important for mainstream sales manufacturers will use them in some higher end systems; if not then they are on the way out wether or not they can be overlocked.
I have a friend who has basically killed two laptops overclocking them, he then takes them back and demands they are faulty
Your friend is kind of a selfish dick.
yes he is. But that is hardly a rare condition. He justifies it by saying they wouldn't put the feature in their if it wasn't meant to be used, therefore it is their fault.
He has a point; absent the manufacturer saying not to overlock or the warranty is void. Is it any different, in principle, than a manufacturer letting you run the CPU at a higher clock rater in "Turbo" mode and if it fails saying "tough luck?" I can see why Nvidia pulled 2015-02-16he capability since they probably never intended for it to be used because it can cause problems and leave them open to repair claims.
If the user overclocks their GPU and it ends up overheating and breaking down isn't the responsibility for that on the user's shoulders? Why does NVidia care so much? Does the law somewhere state that NVidia is still responsible for the damages since their drivers have such an option or what is missing from this story? If some law somewhere did state that then I could totally understand NVidia's stance, but at the same time it would make me wonder why it doesn't apply to desktops, then.
if Nvidia provided the capability and it caused the damage they might wind up liable for the damage, wether from a suit or a manufacturer making them cover repairs. To use a car example, if an engine control module lets you fiddle with settings to get more horsepower or remove the rev limiter and you lunch an engine after using a form the manufacturer capability in the system then they may be liable for repairs.
The companies are probably looking for the cheapest code monkeys they can find and thus don't want to pay for any other skills.
"I made the fateful decision to become a web developer in a small SME in SEA"
I do not know what your acronyms are and damn you for expecting me, the reader, to google them. Next skill? Learn to write.
The OP is an engineer, and a double E at that. Social skills and the ability to communicate are not required in that field of study, and can actually be detrimental. Now, if the OP were an ME, or even better an Aero, than those skills would have been evident in the posting. Just be glad the OP was not a Civil.
1. Apple is a $700B company with >$100B in cash. Think about that for a moment. They could purchase Tesla ($25B) and GM (~$60B) without so much as taking out a loan.
Which proves my point - the barriers to entry are a lot higher for becoming a car manufacturer than making a phone. Apple didn't spend 25 - 60B$ to create the first iPhone. It's not that they don't have the cash it's the high cost of entry to even have a chance to succeed that is the issue.
2. Tesla has already shown that you don't need dealerships to sell cars.
Not really. They've proven that while you can sell a few cars to early adopters you face a stiff uphill battle getting the no dealer model widespread success in the face of dealer opposition and state franchise laws that protect politically powerful dealerships.
That sounds *exactly* like the language everyone used to say Apple could never make a cell phone. Wouldn't know how to deal with the carriers, too many regulations, too many different systems, not enough stores, supply chain would kill them, too many tough competitors, etc. Remember?
Yes, and as I said you can never count Apple out. However, the car market is very different from the cell phone market with much higher barriers to entry. Apple could make a high end prototype vehicle but a mass market one is a very different beast. For example, Apple already had much of the technology in the iPod that could be adapted to a phone. The had an existing supplier base that could sell the phone and in many ways the iPhone was a low risk deal for carriers. If it failed, they still would sell phones and move on to the next hot phone. The sticking point was to
Selling cars requires dealerships, who have to invest millions in building a dealership before they sell one car.If the line goes bust, they are out a lot of money so they want to be sure before they sign on the dotted line. Knowing Apple, they will be like BMW/Porsche etc and demand separate stand alone operations that meet their design requirements; not some existing one that slaps Apple on their list of marques and sell stem along side Chevys and Fords.
That's why I say it is more likely than Apple is exploring making components for use in vehicles than becoming a manufacturer. They might decide to make some very high end cars in a limited run to showcase there tech but I'm guessing the real money for them is becoming a supplier of advanced in car electronics; especially if it integrates into their existing eco system.
If you actually have a car with DIN slots you can slip a popout touchscreen hdmi or vga display in there. But yeah, we'd all like to see standards-based interfaces on those pop-out displays in cars.
Unfortunately, many cars no longer have DIN openings, and even more importantly, are using proprietary busses so even if an aftermarket radio fits you can't connect to the speakers, etc . and have to rewire everything.
I know you think you said something clever, but I should point out that there was a time when Apple didn't know how to make phones or run retail stores. They found and hired the experts they needed to become world leaders in those lines of business.
I'm going way out on a limb here, but it seems to me that if Apple gets into the car business, they'll do so by hiring the top automotive engineers and designers in the world. I know they can outbid anyone else for them.
-jcr
While I wouldn't count Apple out of any line of business they decide to enter, not because they can hire talent but because when you are sitting on billions in cash you can make a lot of mistakes without killing yourself. However, the car and phone business is very different than retail or making phones. They no doubt could pull off a Tesla clone and sell in the US; but becoming a world leader would be many times more difficult. They would need to deal with a myriad of local safety regulations, distribution laws, shipping and storage capability, not to mention setting up a supply chain and manufacturing systems that is very different from making a phone. While they are great at supply chain management they would be tackling a very different type of supply chain. They'd have to be a Porsche or BMW in order to make anywhere near the kind of margins they'd want; even then their stepping int a very crowded space against very tough competitors. My guess is they more likely would become a supplier of key electronic components to manufacturers, making an Apple control system a deficit standard.
Definitely used for lead generation. That was kind of what I meant by position. You can search for "Head of IT" in x region with a company of 50 or more staff.
Yup, That's why when I get requests to connect from people I don't know if their profile looks like a they will be trying to sell something it gets a "I don't know this person" response.
LinkedIn has 2 main income streams. The first is by selling job ads to employers. These are relatively expensive (compared to other job boards) costing $250+
The other is recurring subscriptions which give you additional features. A base account can only "see" 3rd degree connections when doing a search. When you purchase a premium account you are able to get access to the entirety of linkedin's network. This is a huge difference if you are searching for a particular skill set or position.
It also seems to be used as lead generation system. I get requests to connect from people I do not know and when I check they usually are in some business that sells products in my field, and occasionally some random person I have never heard of and probably sent the request in error. They get a simple "I don't know this person" and they go away. I started that after I accepted some invites and started to get "we have a product.." emails.
The other is InMails. These are direct messages that you can send directly to another user without being connected to them. Until January this year LinkedIn guaranteed a response in 7 days or you got your inmail credit back. Now they have flipped it so you get a credit back if you get a response.
A full subscription account costs c$1000 a month. It tends to be used by recruiters and internal HR people the most.
Sound like too many people were ignoring them and thus costing them money.
I don't think it makes any noticable difference but that was not the point I was trying to make. If they can show a measurable difference
And again you miss the point: no matter what equipment you use you will not be able to detect any difference in sound quality between their cable and a regular cable.
No, we're discussing two different points. While I agree that a user would not notice any difference in sound output; that is not my point. The OP mused about them being sued into oblivion base don their claims. My point is there is nothing in their claims, beyond past the 100Gbs over 100 m claim that is provably false. Even the 100GBS could be explained as a typo if they are called on it.
It's even obvious without any testing to anyone who knows anything about the Ethernet, TCP/IP or the OSI model: either a packet of data makes it across the cable or it does not. If it does, then it's going to be bit for bit identical no matter what cable you used, and thus the resulting sound will be identical too. If the packet did not get across, then it means you god a broken cable or some rodent has been chomping on it. But the result will either be a retransmission in time, in which case there will again be no impact on the sound quality, and if not, a pop, stall or stutter
They never claim better sound quality, their claims are all about the construction of the cable.
. But you will under no circumstances get a reduced "sound picture", lesser "differentiation between sonic elements" or lesser "sense of clarity".
That is a review, which is an opinion. Yours and mine would differ but that does not mean the other's opinion is false. In short, while I think they are selling snake oil that doesn't mean they could be sued into oblivion based on a differing opinion.
As I said I gave you a deep discount. But if you still think that electrical noise and crosstalk are in any way relevant to the quality of sound sent through IP packets, then you don't know what you're talking about. In fact it puts you clearly in their target audiophile category with the only thing saving you being the size of your wallet. They could likely con you by selling making the same claims about an ordinary cable and selling it at a a mere 50% premium.
I don't think it makes any noticable difference but that was not the point I was trying to make. If they can show a measurable difference, even if a human would not notice it, then their claim is not false even if it could be considered misleading and thus defensable in court. Given that many of their claims are subjective it would be hard to prove they are false. As for being their target audience I ran generic cat 5e and speaker cable that meets building code and spent as little as possible my wallet is safe. I must admit I splurged on conduit at a few cents a foot rather than merely stringing cable to make it eaiser to pull a replacement if one gets damaged or fails.
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
Oh. I see the problem. Your connection to the Internet goes through a low quality Ethernet cable, or even, shudder, a WiFi connection. But fear not. I provide you with a premium high-fidelity Ethernet cable that will let you see the full clarity of my prose. With it the words will be sharper, their meaning will come into focus. Never again will you have to wonder at the meaning of what you read. And it can be yours now for the low low price of $1000.
Close, but you left of a zero at the end of the price...
when something like a TV will require accepting an EULA in order to use it as intended. No doubt, buried in the EULA will be your agreeing to let them send ads whenever they want. What's next, a coffee machine that can insert other brands of coffee into the brew cycle?
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
I really doubt that.
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
We'll have to disagree with that. I think their claims fly right past the hyperbole zone and land squarely in the outright lie territory. I still think Consumer Reports, The Better Business Bureau or even any competitor would have no trouble getting them condemned for false advertising.
While I agree with you and we are probably closer in our opinions than the thread suggests, there's a big difference between thinking they are lies and proving they are in a court of law; which was the GP's original question. Could you prove there is no noticeable advantage to such a cable and that it's claims are inflated? Sure. Can you prove they were deliberate lies, not just overstatement of tiny measurable differences, and thus false and misleading? Much harder.
For example, they claim they notice better performance in one direction and thus have an arrow to show the proper orientation. While I think that is a bunch of BS they could actually do that; and in the end it becomes a difference in professional opinion, which is different than a lie.
In the end, it proves the adage you can never go broke underestimating the stupidity, nor wallet size, of an audiophile.
Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer?
I doubt you'll find a 10 cent Ethernet cable of that length. Regardless any $5 cat-5 compliant ethernet cable will produce exactly the same sound as this $10000 cable. And I do mean a bit for bit identical and totally indistinguishable by ear or machine. The only exception would be if they use that cable to transmit analog signals instead of Ethernet data.
At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction.
Individual electrons are not data. That company claims the data travels in only one direction but that would prevent TCP from working and also cause the cable to fail the Ethernet requirements. So either calling it an Ethernet cable is a lie, or claiming data travels in only one direction is a lie. So either way they lied and that's no hyperbole.
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
Actually, they seem to claim the cable is directional, not unidirectional, in that it works better in one direction and thus marked with an arrow. While I doubt that claim, it is different than being unidirectional, so my interpretation was incorrect but their claim is not necessarily untrue.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
How come these companies don't get sued into oblivion for false advertising (claiming an impact on sound quality, unidirectional data transfer, 100Gbps compatibility). And why don't the reviewers get sued too for professional misconduct?
Hyperbole is allowed in advertising and,at some level their claims are true even if they are ridiculous. Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer? At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction. The real readon they don't dissappear into oblivion is audiophile gullibility and stupidity know no bounds. As a result when people want snake oil someone sells snake oil.